• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Q9450 or Q6600

S

Scarby Jones

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
270
I ended up buying the OCZ memory listed here http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1263776 and got 8 gigs of it. I was wondering if anyone had an idea if this would pair well with the newer Intel chips (does not have to be Q9450) or if I should just go with a Q6600 instead of waiting? If I do go with the Q6600 what is the best board to try and overclock it with? I was told the ABIT IP35-E was a good board to get pretty good speed out of the Q6600. I am fairly new to the forums so I hope I am posting in the right place. Thanks in advance for any help offered.
 
From what I'm hearing the Q6600 is the better choice. The 8x multi on the Q9450 is probably going to hinder its overclocking capability. I've seen estimates of it getting at most 3.2-3.4 GHz. While you can get around 3.6 GHz with the Q6600. On top of that the Q6600 will probably cost you 100-150 dollars less. There really isn't a difference in clock to clock performance either.
 
Yes there is a difference in performance clock for clock. Even the lower cache 6MB Penryn quads are faster clock for clock. This isn't the only site with similar benchmarks.

http://www.techpowerup.com/?50241

Also before you decide that the Q9450 won't clock as well - It's really upto your mobo to see if that multiplier is a problem for you. People with mobos that can clock the FSB up high with stability might do better with a Q9450 - it all depends on your setup.
 
First off, do you have the cash to burn for a $1000 quad-core chip? If not, go with the Q6600.

If so, I hate you....:D

Seriously, what kind of OC experience do you have? If you're comfortable overclocking, I'd say go with the Q6600, a decent third-party cooler, and OC that beastie!

While the Q9450 is phenomenal, I have a real problem recommending a processor priced in the 4-digit range. It's value depreciates WAY WAY too fast. Especially when that money can be put towards better components elsewhere. The $1000 a Q9450 costs is almost enough to build a complete Q6600 system.
 
Chas said:
First off, do you have the cash to burn for a $1000 quad-core chip? If not, go with the Q6600.

If so, I hate you....:D

Seriously, what kind of OC experience do you have? If you're comfortable overclocking, I'd say go with the Q6600, a decent third-party cooler, and OC that beastie!

While the Q9450 is phenomenal, I have a real problem recommending a processor priced in the 4-digit range. It's value depreciates WAY WAY too fast. Especially when that money can be put towards better components elsewhere. The $1000 a Q9450 costs is almost enough to build a complete Q6600 system.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea the Q9450 is $1000? I think you mistaken it with a QX.

Anyhoo I would wait for the Q9450 to come out and see the results. It's should be here anytime now. That way you'll get a better idea where it'll stand against the Q6600 rather than guessing at the moemnt.
 
I am going to get the Q6700 when they come down in price for its high multi.
 
reswob said:
I am going to get the Q6700 when they come down in price for its high multi.
Click to expand...
Yeah, while everyone is buying the X38 motherboards and 45nm chips, I'm gonna wait patiently for those G0 Q6x00 chips to plummet in resale price. The difference between 3.6ghz on air and 4.0ghz on air isn't worth a new motherboard to me!
 
From what I've seen no real advantage in the 6700 just a higher price tag.
The 6600 can overclock just as nicely. Also I'd rather have the benefits of a Penryn CPU unless the price gap is extremely wide. In April I hear the Quad 6600 is expected fall in price.
 
Timecop1967 said:
From what I've seen no real advantage in the 6700 just a higher price tag.
The 6600 can overclock just as nicely. Also I'd rather have the benefits of a Penryn CPU unless the price gap is extremely wide. In April I hear the Quad 6600 is expected fall in price.
Click to expand...

Like I said...the higher multi.
 
Zinn said:
Yeah, while everyone is buying the X38 motherboards and 45nm chips, I'm gonna wait patiently for those G0 Q6x00 chips to plummet in resale price. The difference between 3.6ghz on air and 4.0ghz on air isn't worth a new motherboard to me!
Click to expand...

You mean like how the E6600 plummetted?
 
Aren't these 4 MBs extra cache on Q9450 better than having an avg. overclock difference of 350 mhz for gaming? and SSE4 for video encoding?

Not sure what are you using the quad for, but Q9450 looks better in both ways to me :p
 
samtan said:
Aren't these 4 MBs extra cache on Q9450 better than having an avg. overclock difference of 350 mhz for gaming? and SSE4 for video encoding?

Not sure what are you using the quad for, but Q9450 looks better in both ways to me :p
Click to expand...

I agree

Thats what i'm waiting for Q9450
 
Q9450 is faster than Q6600 clock for clock, runs cooler, faster, has SSE4 (doesn't matter if you use it or not).
 
But still if you are looking for a 3.6ghz+ OC, the Q6600 is hands down the way to go due to the higher multi. Any decent motherboard can handle the 400mhz FSB required for a 3.6ghz Q6600, while only the best can do 450mhz stable. Even the latest gen 780i and X48 boards are very hard pressed to do the 500mhz FSB required for a Q9450 @ 4ghz.

It really is a shame since we all know the chip itself is capable of 4ghz+ quite easily if it weren't for that multiplier.
 
Markyip1 said:
But still if you are looking for a 3.6ghz+ OC, the Q6600 is hands down the way to go due to the higher multi. Any decent motherboard can handle the 400mhz FSB required for a 3.6ghz Q6600, while only the best can do 450mhz stable. Even the latest gen 780i and X48 boards are very hard pressed to do the 500mhz FSB required for a Q9450 @ 4ghz.

It really is a shame since we all know the chip itself is capable of 4ghz+ quite easily if it weren't for that multiplier.
Click to expand...

My Abit IP35 handles a FSB of 487....and this is just a cheap-o $90 motherboard...with an older chipset...i'm pretty sure the failure attempts were more than likely user error.
 
Yeah but is that with a quad? Keep in mind that dual cores put much less stress on the north-bridge, allowing for higher FSBs. Plenty of motherboards can hit a 500+ mhz FSB with a dual core. Few to none can do so with a quad.
 
Thanks for all of the responses regarding this. From the looks of it I should wait for either one as the Q9450 is not out, and the Q6600 looks like it might drop in price from the new chips.

A lot of you look to prefer the Q9450 and I was wondering if I did decide on that if the DDR2 memory on the link I listed would work okay... The reason I am asking is because I know some of the newer motherboards will only be using DDR3. Does anyone have any motherboard suggestions that I should look at that use DDR2/Maybe some of you could let me know if you have tried them out with the newer shipping Intel chips?

I don't have a lot of experience overclocking but from what I have heard/read these Intel chips can overclock on air quite easily. I do however have a lot of experience with building/fixing computers so I am sure I can learn (everyone has to start somewhere). I am hoping once I get the hardware picked out that I can come back here and maybe get some good tips on overclocking. If you guys have any suggestions or links to read over for overclocking it would be much appreciated. Thanks again for all of the help.

If you have any questions for me let me know.
 
DDR-3 is a waste of money today and will be for quite some time. Look for DDR-3 to only start making in-roads into the price / performance / oc sweet spot range once Nehelem is released at the end of the year. Furthermore, the best motherboards today (in terms of OC headroom) use DDR-2, not 3.

If you know you are only going to use one graphics card, then consider the P-35 based Abit IP-35 Pro, Asus P5K Series, or the Gigabyte DS3R/DS4. If you game at a resolution of at least 1920x1200 and have the cash two video cards, consider the evga NF-78-A1 (nForce 780 / sli) or the ASUS Maximus Formula (x38 / crossfire.) As for dual video card setups, 8800 GT/GTS 512 (G92) is your best bet, but two ATI 3870 X2 cards look to be very promising at the high end. Note that Intel chip-set based boards tend to be easier to work with and overclock than nForce boards.
 
Markyip1 thanks for the post. Right now I do game at 1920 x 1200 and plan on continuing to do so. I have an 8800GTX I plan on moving to the new box to start, and I am kind of curious to see what Nvidia has to answer regarding the reviews on the 3870 X2 cards that I have seen.

Thanks for the suggestions on the boards and answering my questions concerning DDR2. I am thinking that the 780i might be the best bet for the possability of going SLi, even though there is better ability to overclock on the Intel boards. I am thinking maybe that the SLi might be a better upgrade path to keep the system running longer... atleast I hope it will be. Do you think in theory I should still be able to get a decent stable overclock out of the nForce boards?
 
Note that SLI as an upgrade path is usually a very bad idea, as it is often the case that a next gen card will beat two older cards in SLI. It can even be more economical to get the newer card, as you can then sell the older card to offset the cost. You further gain by maintaining a simpler, cooler running system and you'll also have more motherboard options at your disposal. SLI is instead really only of benefit when you can get two cards at the same time (provided you have the necessary resolution.) Lastly, nVidia rarely drops prices of older cards when newer products launch. For example, the ATI HD3870XT looks to be the first card to significantly dethrone the Ultra, yet it will be launching at almost half the price the Ultra did at launch. While an Ultra is several hundred dollars cheaper now than when it launched, it will still be several hundred dollars more expensive than the HD3870XT, assuming it launches at the anticipated $440 mark.
 
Thanks for the input I can see what you are saying regarding the SLi path. I am wondering when nVidia will be presenting their new cards. I have heard that it will be soon and I am sure that will make my final decision if I am going to go SLi or not. If I do go with a single card board should I make sure it has the PCI Express 2.0 spec? I am just curious what you think about it.
 
It's hard to say without more concrete spec data. I myself am more interested in the 9800 GTX than the 9800 GX2. The 7950 was a troublesome card, and I wonder if this GX2 won't be more of the same. As for PCI-E 2.0, it will likely be several generations until cards start to saturate the PCI-E 1.0 bandwidth. Until then, there will be no real advantage to having a PCI-E 2.0 motherboard.
 
Thanks for all of the input. I was thinking the same thing with the regards to the bandwidth but just wanted to see what you thought. For right now it seems like more marketing than anything. One other question Markyip1. How do you like gaming with your current rig and Vista x64? I am just curious as I know that with the rig I am planning on building I will be running Vista x64 as well.
 
Very pleased with it.. no problems at all. If you're building a home / gaming rig with 4 or more gigs of RAM, I strongly recommend it.
 
Markyip1 said:
Note that SLI as an upgrade path is usually a very bad idea, as it is often the case that a next gen card will beat two older cards in SLI. It can even be more economical to get the newer card, as you can then sell the older card to offset the cost. You further gain by maintaining a simpler, cooler running system and you'll also have more motherboard options at your disposal. SLI is instead really only of benefit when you can get two cards at the same time (provided you have the necessary resolution.) Lastly, nVidia rarely drops prices of older cards when newer products launch. For example, the ATI HD3870XT looks to be the first card to significantly dethrone the Ultra, yet it will be launching at almost half the price the Ultra did at launch. While an Ultra is several hundred dollars cheaper now than when it launched, it will still be several hundred dollars more expensive than the HD3870XT, assuming it launches at the anticipated $440 mark.
Click to expand...

have you seen nvidia's roadmap? It isn't looking like we are going to see anything other than g92 refreshes of g80 chips until this coming holiday. I am quite glad I went sli
 
For me I would choose the 9450. I like the newer processors for power savings and cooler temps.
 
Yeah I am really leaning towards the 9450 so that I can have something that will be newer. Markyip1 yeah I was figuring that Vista 64x will be the best bet for the whole 4gb+ thing, and it will be a much better decision than XP 64x. Do you dual boot the system in your sig with XP? or are you just using Vista?
 
Just Vista. If I ever needed XP for anything I would just run it in a virtual machine.
 
ryan_975 said:
You mean like how the E6600 plummetted?
Click to expand...
Please note my usage of the phrase "resale value?" The resale value on the Q6600 is hovering pretty close to the MSRP. As soon as these new quad cores hit the market, those lovely G0 Kentsfields are going down in price on these forums. That's when I'll get one :)
 
Check your 780i boards carefully if you plan to use a Penryn quad core - not all the early boards support it. Some of the Asus boards only support it after the 2nd revision. Most manufacturers have been hesitant about stating Yorkfield compatibility with the 780i.
 
I'm pretty sure most manufactures are trumpeting 45nm quad support as one of the 780i's great new features -- since, well, it sort of is (when compared to the 680i.)

All reference 780i boards should have absolutely no problem supporting the 45nm quad. May are already reporting very good OCs on boards like XtremeSystems. For non reference designs, the Asus Striker II Formula should have absolutely no problem. In fact, the only instance of where I heard of trouble was with some pre-release P5NT boards--but that's it.
 
Don't expect retail chips to come down in price... There may be a slight drop, but there will also be little supply as Intel will have shifted production to newer models. For instance, the E6600 is now more expensive then the E6750 (the processor that replaced it) due to the short supply.

If you want a Q6700 on the cheap, I would suggest waiting until the Yorkfields come out and then try to find one secondhand. Still, I wouldn't consider one unless you found it for less than $300, as there is really no advantage to the higher multiplier on the Kentsfield. Sure, a x10 multiplier can get you to a given speed at a lower FSB, but as far as both chips go, you can more or less reach their max OC potentials on current motherboards (so FSB isn't really an issue,) and both chips have the same max OC potential.
 
Zinn said:
As soon as these new quad cores hit the market, those lovely G0 Kentsfields are going down in price on these forums. That's when I'll get one :)
Click to expand...

Not likely if Wolfdales are still a lot more expensive.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top